Why are people so reactionary here? Do people really think that Ron Paul is now pro war? The explanation for this vote has been pointed out MANY times.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/repjustinamash
“just voted no on H R 2278, which approves funding for the following activities in connection with the unconstitutional Libya war: (1) search and rescue; (2) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; (3) aerial refueling; and (4) operational planning. Congress has not authorized the President to engage U.S. Armed Forces in war, and we should not approve funding to supplement the Libya war. It failed 180-238.”
so, is it just me, or do these things indicate that we should be engaged? 3) aerial refueling: why would we need aerial refueling if we weren’t bombing them...search and rescue missions? We could fly out of Europe, so I don’t it. “and operational planning”...again, if we aren’t going to be engaged in battle over there, then what planning is needed? cutting off funding would have taken care of operational planning...because there WOULDN’T be a need for it!